I am trying to be open minded about the subject and will remain so until I see some sound scientific evidence.

If you're not happy simply going with the most cited research Google Scholar finds for you, the research judged relevant for public policy by the world's governments is referenced here (chapters 1 through 11 are loaded with citations and end with a list of references):http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... tents.htmlIf you want to be able to evaluate some of the science yourself, start with a good textbook:http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/i ... cale=en_GBThere's lots of stuff which could be of interest to geologists in there such as the mechanisms through which temperatures are controlled by geological processes.

Did you bother to read the publication I referenced in my earlier post?BTW, you don't need to tell me how to find information or how to do research. As work and family takes up most of my time I am unable to put together such long, erudite and well researched posts as you are able to produce. Neither do I have the inclination really.

Did you bother to read the publication I referenced in my earlier post?

As I said above, I'm not an expert and I've never heard of that author so I did what I suggested and put "David Archibald climate" (without quotes) in Google Scholar. The results led me to belive the paper wasn't worth my time because the experts don't think it's worth citing. If you're not an expert and don't have the time to research this stuff seriously, the reasonable thing to do is to pay attention to what the people working in the field are saying.

You can use Google Scholar to find papers with more cites on any topic. If you tried for instance to put in the words "glaciation overdue" (without quotes) instead of spending your valuable time reading obscure papers, you'd have gotten links to noteworthy stuff published in legitimate journals. I see for instance that an author named WF Ruddiman wrote "a glaciation is now overdue" in a paper published in 2003. If you click on the link labelled "cited by 430", you'll be able to find out if that hypothesis has been overturned since then by looking at more recent papers which reference it.If you don't have the time for this, simply Google the word "ruddiman" and see if you can find some account of what the fuss around his paper is about aimed at non-specialists.

We are not going into an ice age. I have looked into the science, and this is something that some news headlines said after we realized that aerosols block some sunlight and ironically kept some heat out. But it is not correct. Here's the best synopsis of the science I know of:

The Arctic ice is melting much faster than was first predicted. We are seeing several amplifying effects that will accelerate warming. We have just come through a period of very low sun spot activity -- very unusually low sunspot activity. Low sun spot activity means low heat output. Sunspots have a 22 year cycle and when we move into more activity, the sun's heat will increase and we will have warmer temperatures.

We have more water evaporation, and this leads to more intense rain and more snow, too. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but it doesn't trigger warming -- it is a "reaction" to higher carbon dioxide. And in the past we have seen higher carbon dioxide, but there are many things that all affect the temp: the rotational axis of the earth is different over time, and all the past ice ages are triggered by this. The sun's output increases over time; until it expands so big it burns the earth -- but this is about 1 billion years away, or so.

Watch the series of video I linked to. It is an accurate report on the science. These climate scientists have looked at *all* the factors -- including the ones you have mentioned, and many many others that have not been mentioned. The scientific conclusion is we are in for a rapid warming -- far more quick than at any time in the past; due to human activity.

1. There is indisputable geological evidence that the earth is currently in a cool "interglacial" period which is part of a longer era of glacial and interglacial periods. It is also clear from temperature records that the earth cools much more rapidly than it warms. What cannot be predicted is whether there will be another period of glaciation or whether we are coming out of the longer phase of cooling/warming; i.e. that the "ice age" is over and the planet is returning to it's "normal" state which is warmer, ice free and with a much higer sea level.

2. Humanity is desperately (and understandably) trying to preserve this current climatic "snapshot" in time because it is what suits us as we are now in this briefest instant of the earths history. Nothing inherently wrong with that I suppose; man has been attempting to control his environment since agriculture first appeared. It's entirely natural and driven by our survival instinct.

3. Who's to say that a dramatic reduction in the population of the earth together with a subsequent re-evaluation of the way we live would not be beneficial, in the long term, to the human race?

I personally have no doubt that burning fossil fuels is increasing the CO2 level in the atmosphere and that this will lead to a rise in temperature. It's a proven cause and effect. What I do doubt is the validity of the models predicting the amount of temperature increase. The document referred to previously (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... tents.html) goes into great detail about the uncertainty of the results; the variation in the predicted temperature rise within and between different models illustrates this. Computer models can NOT prove anything unless all the variables and their effects are known absolutely and most certainly not in a chaotic (as in chaos theory) system with so many variables like the climate- the weather men can't even predict what the weather is going to be like next week! It's hypothesis and conjecture only. We are not even sure what all the variables are.Finally, it has to be said that these days, any scientist putting forward any arguments against global warming is considered to be a heretic and in days gone by would probably have been burned at the stake.

Do you think that climate scientists has missed some facts? I think their data and models are as accurate as they can be, and all major factors are well understood and they are all accounted for. We will not be seeing a cooler climate any time soon.

We now have ice clear shipping lanes for the first time ever in recorded human history. The Arctic ice may ALL melt in the summer in just a few years. Melting ice means warming. Melting tundra means warming. Rising ocean levels means warming. Increasing carbon dioxide levels mean warming. All the temperature data show warming.

The inputs to the models that are least certain are the amplifying effects. Carbon dioxide is shown to be the trigger for warming, but once it is warmer, we then get more water vapor, which itself is a greenhouse gas, and it will make it warmer still -- but exactly how much we are getting data all the time. Ditto for dieing trees, the ability for the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide, changing albedo, rates of melting on Greenland and later in Antarctica, fires and floods and droughts -- all these effects and many others all interact and overlap and sometimes partially negate each other. Things like the sun's output, the earth's axis angle, etc. are all knowable. If the ice on Antarctica starts to melt, this will affect the very shape of the earth, and probably the axis -- it is very complicated.

But scientists have sophisticated tools, and they have incorporated all known data, and their best predictions have gotten more and more accurate as they have studied the climate. The bad news is that the worst case scenarios have been too optimistic over the decades. Things have turned out worse than they first thought. The current models now show a dire situation. We cannot afford to wait and see.

Over the last 150,000 years we can see things from a different perspective:

Attachment:

petit150.jpg

In fact, global temperature has actually declined in the last few years, however one cannot look at such a short term trend and make a projection for the next 100 years...

Over the last 450,000 years the picture is a lot clearer:

Attachment:

450kyrs_GMT-Co2_524x291.jpg

It's clear that the current warm phase has lasted longer than normal, this may be down to man's influence or it may be the natural end of the cold period. If however we look at a record of the temperature over the last 540 million years it can be seen that we are in or approaching the middle of the coldest period the earth has known for 450 million years and most of the time it has been MUCH hotter.

Attachment:

Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

Academic really, that sort of time scale compared with the few tens of thousands of years that humans have been around.Make up your own mind of course, it can really only get hotter long term but over the next 20,000 years I think we'll see half the earth covered in ice again.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

No, the instrumental record is not alarming at all.Chart-gazing is not science.Nor is making stuff up.The time you spent putting up pictures would be better spent reading up on scientific methods. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

lolIt's hardly chart gazing, I've made nothing up and the records speak for themselves.Are you claiming that the temperature records are made up? They are taken from the National Climatic Data Centre; which is part of the US Department of Commerce.Do you actually have any scientific background yourself or do you simply cherry pick appropriate pages from Wikipedia to back up your opinions?If you care to delve more deeply into scientific modelling you will find that it only has any value when all the variables and the starting conditions are known exactly.Making sarcastic comments about "putting up pictures" shows your true colours I'm afraid and what you seem to have failed to grasp, despite me having clearly said it; is that I do not question the fact that the short term trend is that the planet is getting warmer!!It is so tedious having to spell things out. It does make me doubt whether you actually read peoples posts with anything approaching impartiality and objectivity. Maybe it's just hard for you to see things on a geological time scale, to see the big picture.

I have no idea what that page says. But I know Wikipedia is usually a decent place to start when looking up a topic about which one knows next to nothing, assuming one is not willing to use a textbook (see above for a suggested textbook).

The pictures do not speak to me.

I'm not impartial.I clearly stated my bias regarding scientific issues: if there's no evidence the scientific community values your sources, I will not value them. And if you are an anonymous poster who doesn't provide any sources, I will not value what you say.

I have no idea what that page says. But I know Wikipedia is usually a decent place to start when looking up a topic about which one knows next to nothing, assuming one is not willing to use a textbook (see above for a suggested textbook).

The pictures do not speak to me.

I'm not impartial.I clearly stated my bias regarding scientific issues: if there's no evidence the scientific community values your sources, I will not value them. And if you are an anonymous poster who doesn't provide any sources, I will not value what you say.

I have given my source.It's up to you to look at the data provided, interpret it and draw conclusions. That's what scientists do. If you disagree with my conclusions then say so and justify your reasoning.I take it that the page you are referring to, the one that you have no idea what it says, is the one you suggested I look at in your previous post? Yet you don't know what it says? How can anyone take you seriously.Objectivity and a lack of bias is a prerequisite for a scientist.

I have seen before the scientific analysis about Earth's cyclical thermal rise and fall over the very long term (say a billion years), and there seems to be a consensus. But as you yourself point out, civilization has barely been here a blink by that scale, much shorter than humans.... perhaps we can say 5000 years. It isn't the survival of humans per se that is the issue -- chances are there will be at least a few survivors of all but the worst climate change scenario -- but rather, human civilization as we know it today.

As you point out, the prospect of human population being culled to say a tenth of current numbers and a complete shakeup of the way we organize might not be a bad thing, there are so many basic flaws in our social/political/economic systems. But the cost sure looks painful.

I think we can agree that the planetary environment over the last few thousand years has been great for humans -- hey we became the predominant species on Earth during this time! Modern civilization is built on high energy consumption, and I for one, would hate to go back to a limited energy existence. There's no question that burning fossil fuel is what brought us here -- it's hard to imagine how humans could have reshaped the world so dramatically without it. Yes, the great wall of China & the pyramids were built by human labor, but would you want to be doing that? Or building the Suez Canal, the Bay bridge in San Francisco, the 3 Gorges dam w/o heavy machinery or industrial steel mills?

Neil & others have pointed out that non-fossil energy technologies are already here, still being developed very rapidly, and we still have the potential to wean ourselves off oil & gas & coal and move to a clean high energy future. But we need more time and concerted effort to pull it off.

There may not be enough time if the greenhouse gas emissions continued unabated & the earth keeps getting hotter. The biggest risk is that as environmental changes cause food, arable (and livable) land, water, and energy to become increasingly limited, the global cooperation needed to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions simply become impossible -- nations, armies, corporations, people will be too busy scrambling for those dwindling resource -- wars, not cooperation, will be far more likely.

-------------------

An aside --

One of the most shameful things about "being a Canadian" is the way the Alberta & Fed. govts have cast CO2 emission and environmental issues aside and rape the tar sands for the $$ from oil. The disaster covers 140,000 square kilometres (54,000 sq mi)—an area larger than England. It's so shortsighted, and the price they get is lower than the much cheaper-to-extract lighter/cleaner Mideast oils. Since Kyoto, Canada's CO2 emissions have gone up by something like 27%, and you can attribute most of that increase to the tar sands operations -- just the heavy machinery operating at the tar sands sites is enough to make Alberta the #1 CO2 province in Canada. They don't have refineries capable of handling the bitumen sludge, which is why it has to go to special refineries in the US, mostly Texas (afaik). By 2011, annual greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands plants alone will be over 80 million tones of CO2 equivalent - more than that produced by all of Canada's passenger cars in 2007. Then there's the staggering number of ponds and lakes in the area designated for utterly toxic tailings -- the volume is staggering, it covers 130 sq km, & grows at an incredible rate. Poisoning of water is a huge issue. (Too many sites about all this to list.)

The eco-risky 1700-mile-long Keystone pipeline to funnel tar sands oil from Canada into refineries along the Gulf Coast is dead for now, at least... but also proposed is the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, cutting across Alberta BC to the coast at Kittimat in northern BC for tankers to China & California. It will cross a thousand streams, many of them salmon-bearing streams, and the headwaters for major river systems, like the Fraser River. Any spill would be utterly devastating. Then there's the spill/accident risk to the waters of the entire west coast, which include some of the last remaining wilderness in N. Am. You remember the Valdez...

...speaking of which, how many of you know that Exxon made a $600 million deal in 2009 with California-based Synthetic Genomics Inc., a company founded by J. Craig Venter (who in 2000 mapped the collection of human genes) to develop synthetic fuel from algae that can be used in cars or aeroplanes without the need for any engine modifications? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... xxon-mobilTalk about hedging your bets! What a turnaround, too, as Exxon was a major contributor to the "what global warming?" disinformation campaign.

There may not be enough time if the greenhouse gas emissions continued unabated & the earth keeps getting hotter. The biggest risk is that as environmental changes cause food, arable (and livable) land, water, and energy to become increasingly limited, the global cooperation needed to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions simply become impossible -- nations, armies, corporations, people will be too busy scrambling for those dwindling resource -- wars, not cooperation, will be far more likely.

Well, I think it's inevitable, sadly. When have humans ever learnt any lessons other than by learning them the hard way?I think that if it's not this that culls the human race it will be something else - disease most likely. It's blindingly obvious, surely, that the population growth rate, whether it be exponential, logarithmic or whatever, is simply unsustainable in a world of limited and dwindling resources - as Neil has already said.As a species, we are just too greedy; boom and bust is natures way.

I learned a lot from watching these videos, and I think you will, too.

He does a reasonable job of explaining the physics to a layman. The basic principals are quite straightforward however quantifying the effect can be more difficult; for example the way in which cloud cover can at the same time have a warming and a cooling effect.It's interesting to consider that the industrial pollutants in the atmosphere up to the 80's when stricter controls were introduced, could well have been masking the effects of the CO2. Perhaps we need to invent some harmless aerosols that will reflect some of the sun's energy without destroying the ozone layer, then we could pump those into the atmosphere.It would also be nice to see the end of deforestation and a program of reforestration introduced; this would suck out a little bit of the CO2. You guys might have to pay more for your burgers though.Another factor that I have not heard mentioned anywhere is the effect of the amount of heat energy produced by burning not just fossil fuels but nuclear, hydro etc. This energy has to go somewhere and it must inevitably go into the atmosphere. Is it significant or just a tiny fraction of the energy we receive from the sun and thus negligible? I've no idea myself but I'm sure someone has done the sums.

Other thoughts:Some parts of the planet will benefit from climate change.Most badly affected areas would be the "Western developed nations" - some countries may view that as a desirable thing.Most, if not all governments are too short sighted to do anything that will affect their chances of winning the next election.Many people in the West are simply too selfish to compromise the comfortable lifestyle they have grown accustomed to which means measures have to be enforced by governments who will not do that for fear of being unpopular. The first thing I would do is raise petrol/gas prices in the US to European levels!

PS Ref the book "Moral Ground: Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril" - let's be clear here, it's NOT the planet that is in peril, it's Western civilisation that is at risk.

PS Ref the book "Moral Ground: Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril" - let's be clear here, it's NOT the planet that is in peril, it's Western civilisation that is at risk.

uh... more like most human civilization & thousands of existing species, I'd say, depending on just how bad it gets. (Though 90% of all species that ever existed were extinct before humans arrived.)

Quote:

Most badly affected areas would be the "Western developed nations" - some countries may view that as a desirable thing.

Funny, Gywnne Dyer's book posits a series of possible scenarios for the coming decades, and it seems clear that tropical/subtropical areas will be worst & first hit -- because they are hotter to begin with, and often in low lying areas where sea level rise will affect them hard. Think of Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, India, parts of Indonesia, Pakistan -- some of these areas average just a meter or 2 above sea level now, not coincidentally, among the worst hit by the Boxing Day 2004 Tsunami. The UK, Canada, Siberia, maybe Nordic countries, being higher latitude, will fare better, the temp rise may even see improved conditions for farming -- if rainfall & water supply hold up.

Quote:

Many people in the West are simply too selfish to compromise the comfortable lifestyle they have grown accustomed to

-- I agree wholeheartedly. My wife and I went from 2 cars to 1, in late summer, and she's itching for us to get a 2nd vehicle again because she hates ever taking the bus or commuter train, which she does now maybe once a week when I need to use the car for something. She has a tough job, more than 9~5 downtown. I rarely need to use a vehicle during the week, so we're probably going to compromise -- with a ~$1200 500W electric scooter that can be used as a step up from my bike when necessary. (85% hydroelectric power in BC makes it a green choice, and there are no insurance or licensing costs -- they're 32 kph max and treated like bicycles by Vancouver city.) Then there's also a good car coop here, and http://www.modo.coop/ happens to keep a car just half a block from my house, so this is a no-brainer, w/ typical real hourly cost at $5~7.

Also agree about gasoline pricing in the US (and to a somewhat lesser degree, Canada). Was in Italy a couple months ago, found myself paying 50% more for gas compared to Vancouver, where it's 25~30% higher than in the US. If gas prices stay low, there's that much less incentive to move to other fuels.

Gywnne Dyer's book posits a series of possible scenarios for the coming decades, and it seems clear that tropical/subtropical areas will be worst & first hit -- because they are hotter to begin with, and often in low lying areas where sea level rise will affect them hard.

That's one problem. Another is the loss of Himalayan glaciers which currently provide year-round water to so many people as well as a buffer against floods. Then there's drought which will probably affect some poor regions ill-equipped to deal with it (compared to regions at risk in Europe and the USA). The IPCC reports deal with that of course but you can also put in the words "Dai drought" (without quotes) in Google Scholar for up to date infromation more authoritative than Dyer's book.

Mike said, 90% of the species that have existed on earth are extinct.The figure is actually thought to be closer to 99.9% however I'm not one for splitting hairs. You get the idea. It's normal and extinction events pave the way for new species to evolve. If the dinosaurs had not gone then it wouldn't have opened things up for mammals and ultimately humans to have become dominant on land.However, this small rise in temperature that we are talking about is as nothing in comparison to events such as the Permian extinction or the K-T extinction (the one that saw off the dinosaurs) and is highly unlikely to cause another mass extinction. You're just being influenced by scaremongering and spin.I'll say it again, the only thing that is likely to come to an end is our comfortable way of life; the duration of which, when compared with the length of time life has existed on this planet, is akin to a grain of sand in the Sahara desert.(Maybe that's a slight exaggeration.)

I'll say it again, the only thing that is likely to come to an end is our comfortable way of life; the duration of which, when compared with the length of time life has existed on this planet, is akin to a grain of sand in the Sahara desert.

Self-preservation is natural, ain't it tho?

Which is partly what makes the lack of intl. cooperation and splitting hair arguments about global warming frustrating. If you want to be absolutely sure that global warming really is happening & the effects are really bad, then you have to wait... till it's too late to do much about it. So whether 450ppm of CO2 is the trigger point to really nasty stuff or 400ppm will doom us just fine or whether we might even survive hitting 500ppm, why risk it at all?

IPCC stated in 2007 that greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2015 to have a chance of keeping temp rise to 2C. No way, now, to stop increasing greenhouse gas emissions after 2015, they are still rising at the rate of 2-3ppm/yr.

It's like driving a bus in a thick fog w/ less than 100' visibility knowing there's probably a huge boulder on the road somewhere up ahead. We know we need 120' to come to a full stop from 40mph, but some in the bus are arguing about whether that boulder really is there and if so, whether it really is that big, and as a result, we don't even touch the brake till we see the boulder. By then it's too late, there will be a collision, the only question is just how bad it will be. As it is, we've still got our foot firmly on the gas pedal, still accelerating .

IPCC stated in 2007 that greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2015 to have a chance of keeping temp rise to 2C. No way, now, to stop increasing greenhouse gas emissions after 2015, they are still rising at the rate of 2-3ppm/yr.

No, that's not what the IPCC stated. See what they really wrote here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... spm-d.htmlAs the small print makes clear, it's subject to a number of uncertainties. As a result, emissions could peak much later and you could still get <2C. Only the odds wouldn't be good.

You're also apparently confusing emissions and the atmospheric concentration which is rising at little more than 2ppm/yr on average. Concentration is likely to keep rising at a slower pace long after the emissions peak (it depends mostly on how fast emissions are cut after that point). Rising concentration at this stage has always been taken for granted. Rising emissions are what Kyoto was supposed to prevent.

The black part of the chart you linked is of particular concern by the way. This was what was supposed to be bear the brunt of the emissions reductions initally because there are mature technologies which would allow have allowed that. My electric utility's default contract has excluded fossil fuels for years. Of course my electricity isn't carbon-neutral for real but close enough. That's not rocket science and would require very little in the way of unpopular measures... yet very little is being done.On top of the gas tax, we also have a puny carbon tax which is deduced from people's health insurance premiums by the way. Special interests are of course trying to keep it puny but now that the benefit of the tax is apparent, there's a lot of people who understand they would actually benefit from a carbon tax hike and who could be convinced to vote for it. I know you have something similar in BC. It can be done.

The steepness of the curve isn't the rate of growth. I assume you understand why that rate is used when one asks how close such a curve might be to peaking or sets emissions reduction targets.If we discount the post-WWII decade, the decade with the strongest emissions growth was the one before the Arab oil embargo. That's well-known and the difference isn't small (roughly, double the current growth rate). Use the dataset if you want to double-check.

If you want me to ignore you, simply ask me too.Alternatively, you could keep up stuff like pretending 2015 is somehow significant after having been shown it has no special significance and comes from a category of scenarios which are not supposed to keep temperatures under +2C and which we've already left behind. Then you won't have to ask.

I'm still working out an issue with the driver board on my 3-axis CNC machine and I should be able to get started building a full sized working prototype of my open source 5 seat electric car, called CarBEN EV5. See my blog linked in my signature for updates.

I'm still working out an issue with the driver board on my 3-axis CNC machine and I should be able to get started building a full sized working prototype of my open source 5 seat electric car, called CarBEN EV5. See my blog linked in my signature for updates.

What are you doing to change our carbon problem?

Much less than you, it appears!

Wow, Neil, I had no idea you were engaged in such an ambitious, cool project! Would love to involved in some way. I am certainly interested in seeing frequent updates on your car project -- here or in a dedicated thread elsewhere in these forums.

They had their eVaro at the X-Prize, and with a 21kWh battery pack (cells by EiG and BMS by FVT) it went ~125miles. They are carrying a 20kW generator (serial hybrid aka range extended plugin electric) in the car. I would use a much bigger (~56kWh) battery pack and since CarBEN EV5 is (probably) more aerodynamic, and should not weigh more, I think that 300-400 miles is quite possible on one charge, and maybe even more.

By the way, the twin direct drive FVT custom electric motors make the eVaro very quick (0-60mph in under 5 seconds) and they get all of the active braking with regen.

They had their eVaro at the X-Prize, and with a 21kWh battery pack (cells by EiG and BMS by FVT) it went ~125miles. They are carrying a 20kW generator (serial hybrid aka range extended plugin electric) in the car. I would use a much bigger (~56kWh) battery pack and since CarBEN EV5 is (probably) more aerodynamic, and should not weigh more, I think that 300-400 miles is quite possible on one charge, and maybe even more.

By the way, the twin direct drive FVT custom electric motors make the eVaro very quick (0-60mph in under 5 seconds) and they get all of the active braking with regen.

Fantastic! Yeah, Maple Ridge is only a bit over 40km away. No idea they were there.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum